jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:also, gallup 7-day tracking already has it back to 50-45 obama

They still haven't switched to a likely voter screen

TenuredVulture wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:I know it's campaign rhetoric, but portraying anything in Libya as a simple black and white situation is either meretricious or stupid. And Mitt Romney is not stupid.

Khaddafi spent a lot of money on getting his reputation polished. He even bought his son Saif a PhD from a respected British institution, and got people convinced he was a reformer. While apparently it wasn't enough to save his own dictatorship, it apparently has provided fodder for anti-democrats among us.

I'm feeling stupid, since I don't see how this relates to my comment. Maybe I need to clarify my own statement? It was in regard to post-Khaddafi Libya and the many factions with various and often hidden intents that are seeking to fill the power vacuum.

See that Romney is now all in for the Syrian rebels too, who aren't exactly Islamist free either. Simple sells, I guess.

Many on the right have criticized Obama's support of the rebels in Libya. Some of this criticism seems based on pontificating by certain academics about how the Khaddafis really are (were) poised to lead Libya towards democracy, but they had to be careful because of all the Islamists there.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/159046/pr ... relations#

Given that Libya appears to be doing well under extremely challenging circumstances, I'd say Obama's policy there has been rather successful. It's curious that in all this, no one seems to remember Lockerbie either.

Wheels Tupay wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:

dajafi wrote:There's a reason they call them "confidence men." Romney was legitimately good in the debate last week because he can speak with confidence on the economy (and Obama missed, I dunno, maybe two dozen chances to knock him out of his comfort zone).

But he doesn't know jack about foreign policy, and he's got people telling him contradictory things; he seemingly can't decide if he wants to emulate the disastrous (but assertive!) first term of Bush 43 or his more competent (but quiet) second term.

Obama, on the other hand, is pretty much in the mainstream of the Cold War presidents with respect to foreign policy. Build coalitions, use force when you have to, utilize soft power, don't fetishize the military but don't disrespect it. Understand the capacities and limitations of projected power in all its manifestations.

I don't think it's fully appreciated how often even presidents who are generally good on foreign policy screw up:

--Truman arguably enabled the North Korean attack in 1950 after his secretary of state characterized the Korean peninsula as a non-priority for U.S. defense
--Ike nearly started a nuclear war over two worthless islands in dispute between China and Taiwan
--JFK okayed the Bay of Pigs and missed the run-up to the Cuban Missile Crisis
--Nixon did the Cambodian incursion and missed the start of the Yom Kippur War
--Ford botched the evacuation of Saigon
--Carter missed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution
--Reagan saw 280 U.S. marines blown up in Beirut and immediately "cut and ran"

You might be saying that it's ridiculous to blame some/most/all those things on the presidents who were in when they happened. That's the point! Same with Romney's criticisms of Obama on foreign policy. All they can do is try to get the big stuff right and hire well.

Bush 41 was probably the best at this in my lifetime. Obama is probably the second best. Romney looks more like Bush 43, who was the worst, though my read of the guy is that he'd recognize his mistakes and correct more quickly than W. did. Unfortunately, the mistakes could be of sufficient magnitude (shooting war with Iran, trade war with China) that he'd only need to make them once to screw things up for a long time.

Reagan's decision to "cut and run" after the barracks attack in Lebanon was probably the best foreign policy decision by a President in the last few decades. We will never be able to understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Our foreign policy is the primary reason people are motivated to attach explosives to themselves and blow themselves the #$!&@ up.

They "hate us for our freedom" is the most retarded rhetoric of all time. They hate us because we #$!&@ with them constantly. Obama is better than Bush, but his constant use of drone attacks on soveriegn nations is pretty reprehensible as well.

Yes, times a billion. Who knew people would get pissed when you are constantly dropping bombs on their heads? And then we have people over here scratching their heads wondering why they hate us. Yes, it is clearly our (ever shrinking) "freedom" that is the problem.

CalvinBall wrote:pew has romney up 4.

anyone's guess at this point. i really doubt one good debate would swing the election 7-8 points.

CalvinBall wrote:pew has romney up 4.

anyone's guess at this point. i really doubt one good debate would swing the election 7-8 points.

Monkeyboy wrote:Just out of curiosity, JH, how can you support someone who so clearly lied his ass off this last debate? How do you know what his policies really are and whether or not you support them? And certainly, how can you trust him? The fact that he lied his ass off while changing many/most of his major positions would make me really not want to vote for the guy. I know I wouldn't vote for a dem that was so transparently full of crap. I'd stay home.

jerseyhoya wrote:Actually I do think Pew might be the worst of the national pollsters we get regular info from just because their results seem more volatile. I don't know if it's something to do with how they define likely voters or what. Their poll that had Obama up 8 last week was ridiculous on its face, and this one seems tough to buy as well.

It's another nice piece of evidence for the 'we're doing it' pile though.

Monkeyboy wrote:Just out of curiosity, JH, how can you support someone who so clearly lied his ass off this last debate? How do you know what his policies really are and whether or not you support them? And certainly, how can you trust him? The fact that he lied his ass off while changing many/most of his major positions would make me really not want to vote for the guy. I know I wouldn't vote for a dem that was so transparently full of crap. I'd stay home.

dajafi wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Just out of curiosity, JH, how can you support someone who so clearly lied his ass off this last debate? How do you know what his policies really are and whether or not you support them? And certainly, how can you trust him? The fact that he lied his ass off while changing many/most of his major positions would make me really not want to vote for the guy. I know I wouldn't vote for a dem that was so transparently full of crap. I'd stay home.

I think if he has a default setting with respect to policy, it's probably more like the guy from the debate and his MA governorship. But he won't fight within his own crazy-ass party to be that guy. And they're so desperate for victory that they won't kick at his pretending to be that guy in order to win.